The Arizona Phonology Conference is a conference publication of the Linguistics Circle, the Graduate Student Organization of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona.

Volume 3 (1990). Edited by James Myers and Patricia E. Pérez.

Excerpt from the Preface:

This volume of the Coyote Papers contains the proceedings of the third annual Arizona Phonology Conference, held at the University of Arizona on March 23-24, 1990. This conference served as a forum for phonologists from Brandeis, UCLA, UMass Amherst, the University of Texas at Austin, Stanford, and the University of Arizona. In addition to the papers in this volume, papers were presented by Juliette Blevins (UT Austin), John Choi (UCLA), Patricia Keating (UCLA), Will Leben (Stanford), John McCarthy (UMass Amherst), Donca Steriade (UCLA), and Moira Yip (Brandeis).

Recent Submissions

  • Preface (Arizona Phonology Conference, Volume 3, 1990)

    Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E. (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
  • Hypocoristic Formation in Nootka

    Stonham, John; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; Stanford University (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    In Nootka, there is a strategy for forming hypocoristic names, or terms of endearment, from the normal form of the name by a combination of truncation, vowel mutation and affixation. The nature of this formation is highly suggestive of the type of morphology described by many linguists as subtractive. In this paper, however, we will show that what actually occurs is a pattern of template -filling based on the prosodic structure of the language. We will argue that the building of hypocoristic forms is, in fact, highly reminiscent of reduplicative strategies employed in this language as argued for in Stonham 1987 for the closely related Nitinaht language, the difference being that reduplication subsequently concatenates with the structure it has drawn from, while Nootka hypocoristic formation, henceforth H.F., abandons the remainder of the original structure, retaining only the copied portion required for the template. Before investigating the nature of H.F., we will first present certain aspects of Nootka structure which will be important for a clear exposition of the problem.
  • Pacific Yup'ik: Implications for Metrical Theory

    Rice, Curtis; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of Texas, Austin (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    Recent developments in metrical theory have led to the situation in which there are now at least four different approaches to stress assignment. One approach uses only a grid to represent the relative prominence of syllables in a word (cf. Prince 1983); aside from representational conventions, the grid -only approach differs from the other three in that it does not posit any metrical constituency. Second, the constituentized grid approach also represents stress with a grid, but by enhancing the representations with parentheses, metrical constituency is also indicated (cf. Halle and Vergnaud 1987). Hayes (1987) has recently developed an approach employing representations like those in the constituentized grid approach; I will refer to this as the templatic approach. This approach is different insofar as the constituents which are available in the theory are not derived from parameters, but rather it is the constituent templates themselves which are the primitives of the theory. The fourth approach is one in which relative prominence is indicated with arboreal structures, rather than with grids (cf. Hayes 1981, Hammond 1984). In this paper I will present an analysis of the stress pattern of Pacific Yup'ik which follows Rice (1988), and I will claim that this analysis has important implications for each of the approaches mentioned above. Pacific Yup'ik is a particularly interesting testing ground for metrical theories; for our purposes here, the interesting aspect is that an adequate analysis of the stress pattern has broad implications for various approaches to stress assignment.
  • Swati and Kikuyu Reduplication: Evidence Against Exhaustive Copy

    Peng, Long; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of Arizona (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    Two intriguing properties of reduplicative affixes are that they are invariant in shape or weight and that their segmental makeup is dependent upon the base to which they are attached. Previous autosegmental explanations of shape- invariance and base- dependent melody adopt two mechanisms: i) a skeletal template to account for the consistency in weight and ii) a copying mechanism that transfers base segmental content into a reduplicative template (Marantz 1982, Broselow and McCarthy 1984, and Levin 1985). These accounts have since come under attack for a number of reasons. One major criticism concerns the unconstrained nature of templates; in, principle., any string of skeletal slots can be licensed as a template under these earlier accounts (Clements 1985, McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1987, and Steriade 1988). As a means of coping with this problem, McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1987) propose that reduplicative affixes be characterised by prosodically defined templates: i) core syllables (ad, ii) light syllables (σ(μ)), iii) heavy syllables (σ(μμ)), iv) syllables (σ), v) bimoraic feet (F(μμ)), vi) iambic feet (F(μμμ)), vii) disyllabic feet (F(σσ)), and viii) prosodic words. An important contribution of prosodic templates is that they establish prosodic constituency as a criterion for constraining templates, for a unit that does not correspond to a prosodic constituent can never be licenced as a reduplicative template. In addition, McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1987) exploit a copying mechanism. Copying can take two forms: i) an entire sequence of base segmental melody can be targeted for copying; or ii) a portion of it can be targeted for copying as long as that portion is prosodically defined or "circumscribed" (McCarthy and Prince 1990). In either case, copying is selective in that it excludes suprasegmental structures. Hence, I will refer to this model as Selective Copy. In contrast with Selective Copy, Steriade (1988) puts forward a different prosodic model of reduplication. Within her model, shape- invariance results from an interplay of weight and syllable markedness parameters. Among the weight parameters are: i) light syllables, ii) monosyllabic feet, iii) bimoraic feet, iv) disyllabic feet. These weight parameters differ from prosodic templates posited by Selective Copy. They are not templates that possess independent prosodic structures even though they are stated in terms of prosodic units that specify which prosodic constituent is targeted as the reduplicant. This conception of weight parameters forces a different copying apparatus. Copying must be exhaustive: it must target both the segmental melody and the prosodic structure of the base. This is critical; without the prosodic constituents of the base, weight parameters cannot select which unit of the copied base to retain as the reduplicant. In the following, I will refer to this model as Exhaustive Copy. This brief contrast demonstrates two radical differences between Selective Copy and Exhaustive Copy: i) templates vs. parameters and ii) selective vs. exhaustive copying. These differences impose a further contrast in expressing insertion of base - independent melody. Whereas insertion can make reference to the prosodic units of a template with Selective Copy, it cannot rely on parameters with Exhaustive Copy. Insertion can and must be defined by an existing prosodic structure of the base. This distinction becomes significant in examining Swati diminutive reduplication, which shows a base-independent vowel a in its reduplicant. What is important about this melody is that it is present only when a base cannot supply sufficient segmental content for a foot-sized reduplicant lingi-lingis 'resemble a little' vs. goba-gob 'bend a little'. The question addressed here is whether or not these two proposals can express a insertion. I demonstrate that a insertion cannot be formally stated by Exhaustive Copy. Crucial to the argument is that an insufficient base is lacking not only in segmental melody but also in prosodic constituency essential for defining the locus of insertion. Motivation for an insertion treatment takes two steps. First, internal evidence from passive formations suggests that i functions as the default vowel -not a. Second, this a behaves in Kikuyu like an architypical instance of "prespecification" in that it overrides any vowel in the base. As mentioned in footnote 4, Kikuyu and Swati are both members of the Bantu family. Moreover, reduplication as a diminutive marker is an important and widespread property of Bantu morphology (Meinhof 1932). This suggests that Swati a should be treated on a par with Kikuyu a since it cannot be filled in by default. The layout of this paper is as follows. Section 1 contrasts the two models of reduplication through examples from Tagalog. Section 2 applies Selective Copy to an account of Kikuyu and Swati reduplication. In particular, I demonstrate that Swati a requires an insertion treatment in consideration of both internal and external evidence. Section 3 spells out the argument against Exhaustive Copy from Swati a. In Section 4, I discuss some further implications of the templatic vs. parametric opposition for an overall theory of morphology. The critical point emerging from this discussion is that morphological processes such as Semitic roots and Japanese hypocoristics require access to templates; the parametric approach falls short on this score.
  • Floating H (and L*) Tones in Ancient Greek

    Golston, Chris; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of California, Los Angeles (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    This paper looks at two recent approaches to accentuation in Ancient Greek, Steriade 1988 and Sauzet 1989. Both Steriade and Sauzet include treatments of enclitic accentuation in Ancient Greek which I will argue need to be revised. Steriade offers a metrical analysis that is consistent with most of the data but theoretically suspect. Sauzet 1989 offers a mixed metrical/autosegmental account that is theoretically more appealing but-fails to account for established generalizations about enclitic accentuation. I will adopt the general framework of Sauzet, which seems to be more in line with normal (non -enclitic) accentuation in Ancient Greek, but revise his analysis of enclitic accent. The result, I hope, will be a more insightful approach to enclitic accent than either Steriade's or Sauzet's. An added bonus of the present analysis is that it uses the same footing procedures that Allen (1973 ) has motivated independently for Ancient Greek primary and secondary stress- -this is true of neither Sauzet's nor Steriade's analyses.
  • Purely Privative Vowel-Feature Systems as a Generative Theory: Fixing Certain Problems with Particle Phonology

    Churchyard, Henry; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of Texas, Austin (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    The goal of this paper is to develop a fully formalized, (i.e. generative) privative vowel-feature theory which is a viable alternative to conventional feature theory for vowels. To do this, certain revisions to the theory of Particle Phonology will be proposed.
  • Is Voicing a Privative Feature?

    Cho, Young-mee Yu; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; Stanford University (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    A typology of voicing assimilation has been presented in Cho (1990a), whose result will be summarized in section 2. Like many other marked assimilations, voicing assimilation is characterized as spreading of only one value of the feature [voice]. The main body of this paper will compare a privative theory of voicing with a binary theory. It has often been noted that assimilation rules are natural rules since they are cross - linguistically very common. It has also been observed that they are asymmetric in nature (Schachter 1969, Schane 1972). For example, nasalization, palatalization, and assimilation of coronals to noncoronals are extremely common but the reverse processes are not frequently found in natural languages. On the other hand, voicing assimilation has been known to be relatively free in choosing its propagating value. Whereas the other assimilation rules are sensitive to the marked and the unmarked value of a given feature, assimilating a voiced consonant to a voiceless consonant has been assumed to be as natural as the reverse process (Anderson 1979, Mohanan (forthcoming)). I have argued that voicing assimilation is no different in its asymmetry from the other types of assimilation by demonstrating the need for two parameters and one universal delinking rule. A universal typology emerges from the possible interaction among the values associated with delinking and spreading parameters. The following theoretical assumptions will be utilized throughout this paper. First, I follow the standard assumption in Autosegmental Phonology that assimilation rules involve not a change or a copy but a reassociation of the features. This operation of reassociation called spreading is assumed to be the sole mechanism of assimilation rules (Goldsmith 1979, Steriade 1982, Hayes 1986). Second, I assume Underspecification Theory, which requires that some feature values be unspecified in the underlying representation ( Kiparsky. 1982, Archangeli and Pulleyblank (forthcoming)). Distinguishing different versions of Underspecification Theory will not be relevant in the discussion since I will discuss whether voicing is universally a privative feature or a binary opposition. Third, I assume the principle of Structure Preservation (Kiparsky 1985, Borowsky 1986), which is expressed in terms of constraints that apply in underlying representations and to each stage in the derivation up to the level at. which they are turned off (usually in the lexicon). Structure Preservation will be invoked to classify obstruents on the one hand, and sonorants and the other redundantly voiced segments on the other. Last, I translate the Classical Praguean conception of the relation between neutralization and assimilation into the autosegmental framework, and assume that assimilation is always feature-filling. All instances of the effect of feature-changing assimilation rules, then, are the result of two independent rules of (1) delinking and (2) spreading (Poser 1982, Mascaró 1987).
  • Deriving Abstract Representations Directly from the Level of Connected Speech

    Bourgeois, Thomas C.; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of Arizona (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
  • Against [lateral]: Evidence from Chinese Sign Language and American Sign Language

    Ann, Jean; Myers, James; Pérez, Patricia E.; University of Arizona (Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1990)
    American Sign Language (ASL) signs are claimed to be composed of four parameters: handshape, location, movement (Sto]çoe 1960) and palm orientation (Battison 1974). This paper focuses solely on handshape, that is, the configuration of the thumb and the fingers in a given sign. Handshape is significant in ASL and Chinese Sign Language (CSL); that is, minimal pairs exist for handshape in each. Thus, the two ASL signs in (1) differ in one parameter: the handshapes are different, but the location, palm orientation and movement are the same. Similarly, the two CSL signs in (2) differ in one parameter: handshape. A logical next question asks if handshapes are further divisible into parts; more specifically, are handshapes composed of distinctive features? This question is not new; in fact, researchers have made many proposals for ASL handshape features (Lane, Boyes -Braem and Bellugi, 1979; Mandel, 1981; Liddell and Johnson, 1985; Sandler, 1989; Corina and Sagey, 1988 and others). This paper focuses on the proposal of Corina and Sagey (1988). In Section 2, I outline the proposed system for the distinctive handshapes of ASL, of which [lateral] is a part. Then using data from ASL and CSL, I give three arguments in support of the claim that there is not sufficient justification in ASL or CSL for the feature [lateral]. First, I show in Section 3 that the prediction which follows from the claim that [lateral] applies only to the thumb, namely that the thumb behaves differently from the other fingers, is not borne out by CSL data. Second, I argue in Section 4 that since other features (proposed by Corina and Sagey, 1988) can derive the same phonetic effects as [lateral], [lateral] is unnecessary to describe thumb features in either ASL or CSL. Third, in Section 5, I use ASL and CSL data to argue that the notion of fingers as "specified" or "unspecified ", although intuitively pleasing, should be discarded. If this notion cannot be used, the feature [lateral] does not uniquely identify a particular set of handshapes. I show that CSL data suggests that two other features, [contact to palm] and [contact to thumb] are independently needed. With these two features, and the exclusion of [lateral], the handshapes of both ASL and CSL can be explained. In Section 6, the arguments against [lateral] are summarized.